Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Roger Gale: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start, let me say that I have taken a look at the schedule of what we must get through between now and a week today. Under the terms of the agreement with the House, the Bill must exit Committee at 4 pm on that day, and there is rather a lot to get through. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that this is an important Bill, and my job is to ensure that it is properly debated. I cannot tell hon. Members what to do or what they may and may talk about, and nor do I seek to do so, because that is in their gift. However, what I would say—clearly and, I hope, not too fiercely—is that it would be an extremely good idea for the usual channels to talk to each other about Tuesday evening, if they have not already done so. What happens then will depend on where we have got to by the end of the afternoon, when I shall also be present. We owe it to colleagues in the House to ensure that we get through as much of the Bill as we can, even if we cannot get through it all. Now, it is over to you.

New Clause 21

Implied term as to fitness for human habitation
‘In section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for subsections (3) and (4), substitute the following—
‘(3) This section applies to a contract for the letting of a house for a term of less than seven years.
(4) In determining whether the letting is one to which this section applies, the provisions of section 13(2) shall apply.’.—[Lembit Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be a read a Second time.
Good morning, Mr. Gale. I take on board your request for focus and brevity. The new clause, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, seeks to define the applicability of sections 8(3) and (4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Referring to section 8, the amendment says:
“This section applies to a contract for the letting of a house for a term of less than seven years”.
The next part of the amendment is self-explanatory. Obviously, we are trying to ensure that the legislation applies to the right people in the right circumstances and in a fair way, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Given what you have just said, Mr. Gale, there is no great benefit in my giving a lengthy exposition, because it is the Government’s perspective that is important, not mine.

Iain Wright: Thank you, Mr. Gale, and good morning to you. I take on board your ruling on moving forward swiftly while seeking to ensure that the important measures in the Bill are adequately scrutinised and debated.
The new clause would extend the obligation to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation, as defined under section 10 of the 1985 Act, to all rented accommodation that is let on short leases of less than seven years. I fully understand why the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for St. Ives tabled it, but it is not necessary, because we now have more up-to-date and effective provisions in place to ensure that rented property is let and maintained in a satisfactory and safe condition.
The fitness standard referred to in section 10 of the 1985 Act has been replaced by the housing health and safety rating system, which was introduced in the Housing Act 2004. The old fitness standard was based on criteria that were originally introduced 80 years ago and it was in great need of modernisation.
The new rating system is a risk-assessment process, which looks at the likelihood that an incident will arise as a result of the condition of the property and that there will be a harmful outcome. That approach allows the assessment to be geared to the individual circumstances of each case, based on the risks to those occupants who are most vulnerable to the hazards.
The rating standard assesses 29 categories of housing hazard, such as electrical hazards, cold, falls, fire and so on and is therefore a more suitable tool than the old standard for improving housing conditions in the private rented sector. The old standard did not cover all the major health and safety problems found in a home and gave no indication of how serious problems were.
If a property is found to contain serious, so-called category 1 hazards, the local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate action in relation to those hazards. That could include serving a notice for the landlord to carry out improvements and it may even extend to issuing a prohibition order, the effect of which would be to close all, or part of, a property.
The Housing Act 2004 enables local authority environmental health officers to undertake a rating system assessment of the risks and hazards in a property. If risks are found, the authority can instruct the landlord or person responsible for management to undertake any works necessary to ensure that the property is safe and decent—for example, the installation of central heating. It can instruct the landlord to undertake such works within a set time scale. Failure by the landlord or manager to do so can result in a fine of up to £5,000.
In addition, landlords have obligations to carry out repairs to keep their properties in good condition. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, they are legally responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of their properties and for keeping the plumbing and heating installations in proper working order. Local authorities have powers to force landlords to carry out necessary repairs. The rating system that I mentioned can be used by tenants whose landlords fail to carry out the repairs for which they are responsible under the landlord and tenant Acts.
Local authorities have a range of powers to force property owners to deal with statutory nuisance problems relating to the condition of a property. For example, under the Building Act 1984, they can require steps to be taken to address a property that adversely affects the amenity of an area due to disrepair.
Given the range of powers in place from a variety of legislation, I believe that adequate provisions are already in place to address the condition of rented accommodation. Indeed, the new housing health and safety rating system has many advantages over the old fitness standard. As the new rating standard can give full consideration to problems caused—for example, by damp and a lack of central heating—in the way that a fixed set of minimum standards cannot, it provides more protection for tenants.
I hope that I have set out the position clearly and reassured the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and that he will withdraw the motion.

Lembit Öpik: I applaud the Minister’s faith in existing legislation. He is right to highlight the housing health and safety rating system and to point out that, in theory at least, a tenant can evoke it to secure improvements in the standard of accommodation that they rent. However, in any practical sense, often that is not the case. We are dealing with individuals who frequently feel disfranchised and quite often feel intimidated by their landlord. As such, although theoretically an individual who rents a property can use existing legislation to improve the conditions in which they live, in practice that is often unlikely. To list 29 categories of hazard in legislation is fine, but I would be willing to bet that 99.9 per cent. of the public have no idea what those 29 categories are. The new clause would make it a little easier for tenants to see their rights protected.
I hear what the Minister says, and to save time and to consult Shelter and other organisations I will not press the new clause to a vote now, but I may bring it back on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation
‘In section 55 of the Housing Act 2004, for subsection (2), substitute the following:
“(2) This Part applies to the following HMOs in the case of each local housing authority:
(a) any HMO which comprises three storeys or more or which is occupied by four or more persons who live in two or more households;
(b) any other HMO which falls within any prescribed description of HMO, and
(c) if an area is for the time being designated by the authority under section 56 as subject to additional licensing, any HMO in that area which falls within any description of HMO specified in the designation.”’.—[Dr. Blackman-Woods.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With the new clause, we are using the opportunity provided by this aspect of the Bill to press the Government to extend mandatory licensing beyond what is outlined in the Housing Act 2004. There is clear evidence from Shelter and within the House from the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities that the current threshold leaves thousands of vulnerable tenants in very difficult circumstances and at risk, because they fall outside the scope of the mandatory licensing system.
We also know that many local authorities, which can have an additional licensing or selective licensing scheme for housing, refuse to do so even when there is a strong local need, such as in my city of Durham. In Durham, there is an extensive private rented sector because of the student population and because Durham is a centre for the county. There is a real need in the area for an extended licensing scheme, but that has not been undertaken by the people in the local authority, for reasons best known to themselves.
Good landlords have assured me that they have nothing to fear from an extension of mandatory licensing, so the new clause pushes the Government to introduce mandatory licensing for all houses in multiple occupation with more than four occupants or with three storeys or more. Currently, licensing is mandatory for dwellings with five or more occupants and three storeys or more.
The previous Minister for Local Government, now the Minister for the Environment, gave assurances at an Adjournment debate last June that this situation would be considered seriously. I know that the Government announced a review of the private rented sector yesterday, but I want to press the Minister on this. The Government should seriously consider making changes to the mandatory licensing scheme so that tenants are better protected and there is better management across the whole private rented sector.

Lyn Brown: I support the new clause in the hope that we might broaden the coverage of the current licensing scheme. Even Government figures estimate that the scheme covers only 120,000 houses in multiple occupation—only 19 per cent. of the 638,000 estimated HMOs in England. The mandatory scheme for larger houses places an onus on landlords to register properties, and gives councils a chance, at least, of regulating the circumstances in their areas.
There are two principal reasons why I support the new clause. First, the mandatory scheme covers only homes with three storeys or more. In my constituency, most houses have two storeys and there is very little accommodation with three storeys. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham talked about the students who occupy such homes in her area, but in my area we are talking about migrant workers who have come to build the new city at Stratford and the Olympic site. My constituents and I are in a borough with the largest building site in Europe. Understandably, for such a large-scale property development and project, the migrant workers will be with us only temporarily. They tend to secure accommodation close to the site where they work, in small houses with many people to a room. As construction efforts ratchet up, more workers are required on site, and that has led to overcrowding as workers share accommodation to keep costs down. Constituents have told me that hot-bedding is rife. That is when a bed is shared by many people on different shifts.

Margaret Moran: May I emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making? In the 1950s and 1960s, in Luton, hot-bedding was the norm when Irish construction workers came over to build Luton, and subsequently. That has not happened for generations, but is now happening again in areas such as mine that are part of the new Milton Keynes/south midlands growth area. We are starting to experience exactly the same problems.

Lyn Brown: I thank my hon. Friend. Hot-bedding might be acceptable on a nuclear submarine, but it does not make for sustainable communities. The pressure on accommodation is so great that lock-up garages and garden sheds have been illegally converted into accommodation. On 2 January, the Newham Recorder, a fantastic local campaigning newspaper, reported the death of an individual who had been living in a lock-up garage on the Romford road. It seems that a heater in the garage caught fire while he was asleep. The conflagration was so intense that it has not yet been possible to identify his body, but he clearly was sleeping and had furniture in a lock-up garage.
Migrant workers are being charged a huge amount for the privilege of hot-bedding and, we think, sleeping in lock-up garages. They are in poor-quality accommodation and seriously overcrowded houses. Last night, at a meeting in my constituency, a constituent told me of a two-bedroom house in Plaistow in which more than 14 men live. The problem is not small; it is widespread. Given that the homes are too small for the number of people staying in them, mere living is being exported outside the confines of the house. Living happens in the street and the garden. It is insanitary.
I have lost sight of the number of complaints that I have received from constituents about this issue, which is leading to home occupier flight. While the population temporarily rockets, long-term residents find the associated pressures too great. I am repeatedly told by neighbours and friends in the community that they have had enough. They are putting their homes up for sale, but the problem is that when they do so they sell to people who then rent the house out, so the situation gets worse and worse. The exceptionally high occupancy levels cause real stress, and the current licensing scheme does little to protect those in smaller houses in multiple occupation. More than 80 per cent. of such homes are not covered by the mandatory licensing scheme, and the majority of those in my constituency fall outside the mandatory threshold.
The new clause would increase the number of properties that came within the scope of the regulations. As I stated earlier, very few of the houses in multiple occupation in West Ham are three or more storeys high, so the current legislation ignores large swathes of the sector. Those smaller properties are much more likely to be owned by smaller-scale and more informal landlords, and to have a greater impact on the area in quieter more residential neighbourhoods; under the new clause, instead of a property being required to have three or more storeys and a significant number of residents, either criterion would qualify it to be an HMO eligible for regulation.
I recognise that we cannot overburden the sector with unnecessary regulation and local authorities with additional properties to inspect and regulate. However, as I have outlined, the problems caused by HMOs are significant enough to justify the new clause. I urge the Minister to accept it, and to place an onerous financial burden on landlords caught flouting the law. The last thing that is needed is for the Minister to accept the provisions but for a derisory penalty to be imposed on landlords, given the amount of money that they rake in by overcrowding homes and burdening communities.

Iain Wright: I pay tribute to the passionate and tenacious manner in which my hon. Friends have raised the issue. They have raised it with me on many occasions, and I pay tribute to their campaigning skills on affordable housing, overcrowding and problems of houses in multiple occupation.
I shall give the Committee the context. The Labour party manifestos of 1997 and 2001 made a commitment to introduce the mandatory licensing of HMOs to raise standards in such housing, which, as we have heard, is often poor quality and badly managed. Consultation on those pledges indicated widespread support for that approach. However, the Government were keen to avoid the excessive regulatory burdens to which my hon. Friend has alluded and therefore wanted licensing of HMOs to be a properly targeted measure. It was decided that mandatory licensing should apply to those properties with the highest risk, which often provide the greatest management challenges.

Lyn Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that the greatest risk is not necessarily a question of the size of the building; it may be a question of the area in which it sits and the local circumstances?

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has raised a good point, and I shall come on to that.
A 1997 report commissioned from the consultants Entec entitled “Fire Risk in HMOs” concluded that the fire risk in HMOs is greatest for occupants in properties of three or more storeys, and that the level of occupancy also influences risk. Given that the legislation is designed to catch those properties that pose the greatest risk to occupiers, if the largest HMOs pose the greatest risk, drawing the line at three storeys and five persons, which is the current position, was and is right, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. However, the “prescribed description” of a mandatory HMO is contained within an order, so if further evidence suggests otherwise—the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has provided is top notch—it can be easily changed, which is why the measure was not included within the Housing Act 2004. It was important to explain why the definition is as it currently is, and why it is based on the risk to occupants.
Now I will turn to some related issues that are not directly connected to the risk to the occupants of HMOs, but that will resonate with my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for West Ham, who tabled the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has concerns about balanced communities—I know that, because she is a near neighbour of mine in the north-east and a tenacious campaigner for affordable housing. At her invitation, I attended a seminar in her area on affordable housing, and I pay tribute to her work. That work is sometimes in conflict with the local authority, which does not seem to prioritise housing as my hon. Friend does—I think that she has the measure of her constituency absolutely right.
My hon. Friend has a beautiful city as her constituency, and she has a beautiful and extremely prestigious university in her constituency. Most student housing that is owned and managed by the educational establishment providing courses in higher or further education to students is exempt from mandatory licensing, due to three nationally approved codes of management practice for that particular sub-sector.
On student accommodation that is not owned and managed by educational establishments, my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of, and will no doubt contribute to, the measure that we are about to consult on, namely the changes to the use classes order in relation to HMOs. We need that consultation to allow the Government to consider whether local authorities need to have more planning control over the future establishment of HMOs and their density. A small working group is also being set up to examine how the relevant agencies can better work together on the concentration of that particular sub-sector—the so-called “studentification” of an area—via a non-legislative route. I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to that consultation and feed in her concerns through that process to me, which I am sure that she will do.
Notwithstanding the contribution that students make to the economy of a town or city—I certainly want to see a university of Hartlepool, and I think that a university is important for generating prosperity in an area—there can be management issues in relation to properties predominantly housing student tenants, such as smaller HMOs, perhaps in targeted, specific areas. That is why the Housing Act 2004 gave local authorities the power to designate areas subject to additional licensing, where proper local consultation has been carried out and consent has been given by the Secretary of State. Additional licensing allows licensing to be focused on particular circumstances and in particular areas where there are problems for members of the wider local community caused by the poor management of privately rented property.
The provision for the introduction of additional licensing schemes will also apply in the instances that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham outlined today—she also outlined them on Second Reading and in an Adjournment debate last year about housing in West Ham to which we both contributed. Indeed, many hon. Members have encountered problems involving smaller houses, which were perhaps initially designed for families but have now been let by landlords to multiple individuals. As a result—my hon. Friend put this far more eloquently than I could—those houses are often overcrowded, causing health and social problems to the detriment of their occupants. They are also a nuisance for the wider area, causing issues such as excessive car parking, which sometimes occurs in student areas, and waste collection problems. My hon. Friend will recall that I wrote to her on 14 January outlining how the proposed changes and new regime might work in her constituency, and I am keen to work with her to follow that up.
If additional licensing is introduced in a local authority area and a landlord refuses to obtain a licence for a property, the local authority could prosecute the landlord, and the courts could award a fine of up to £20,000. I think that that addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham that the level of punishment needs to be commensurate with the level of rents that the landlord may be fleecing from the tenant. Similarly, if a landlord breaches the conditions of a licence, such as the level of occupancy, for example, the courts could fine the landlord up to £5,000 for committing a criminal offence. I imagine that my hon. Friend agrees that the penalty will have a real bite on non-compliance.

Grant Shapps: I support the direction of the new clause, inasmuch as I know from my experience of representing a university town—Hertfordshire university is in Hatfield—that many of the problems mentioned by hon. Members are very real. Will the Minister accept that many local authorities do not have the resources to do the kind of checking or to make the sort of investigations that would lead to the severe fines and penalties that he outlines? Is that not one of the problems with the existing legislation, let alone with further amendments to it?

Iain Wright: I suggest that local authorities need to target resources according to the particular concerns of the residents and pressure from elected members and hon. Members. The approach that my hon. Friends have taken is, I know, close to hand because of the media interest. Indeed, because of the tremendous campaigning work that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has done, I know that she is pushing a reluctant local authority, and I pay tribute to her for what she has achieved. That is the way to deal with possible burdens.
In addition, the Housing Act 2004 offers local authorities the power to serve overcrowding notices on non-licensable HMOs, such as houses that do not fall under mandatory selective or additional licensing schemes, should there be a risk to the safety and welfare of occupants. We will talk about overcrowding later, but the overcrowding notice must specify the maximum number of persons for which a room is suitable for use as sleeping accommodation, or that a room is unsuitable to be used as sleeping accommodation.
Local authorities can develop their own overcrowding standards on room sizes for privately rented HMOs, and houses that do not comply with the standard can be served with an overcrowding notice. If the landlord or manager of the property breaches the notice conditions, an offence is committed, and they can be fined up to £2,500.

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister accept that it is difficult for councils to identify those homes that are currently massively overcrowded, as they do not need to be licensed? There are many streets in my area where people live in temporary accommodation or houses in multiple occupation, because of the way in which the housing market is going. That is the result of, first, the pressures caused by property in east London being cheaper than property elsewhere in London, which makes it an attractive buy for people who want to get their first foot on the housing ladder in London, and, secondly, the building work taking place in Stratford. Because of those concerns, it would be so much easier if all HMOs needed a licence. It is harder for the council to identify those houses that are not expected to have or do not need a licence.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has brought me nicely on to my next point, which has also been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, namely the review of the private rented sector that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing announced yesterday—she may have referred to it when giving evidence in December. I do not expect it to act as a magic wand—the review will not solve all the problems overnight—but it will be important to collect the evidence, as it will allow us to move forward on future legislative proposals. In a moment, I shall mention certain things that are in the terms of reference of the private sector review that will help with my hon. Friends’ concerns. I urge them to contribute to the review, and I will ensure that they can speak to those who are carrying it out.

Margaret Moran: I want to reinforce the point. Is the Minister aware that my constituency is another low-cost area? People come from London, because it is cheaper to rent in Luton. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has mentioned people living in sheds and garages, which are not caught by existing legislation because no one perceived that people would convert such buildings—indeed, some of those places are not converted, and people are living in outbuildings. Unscrupulous landlords are exploiting poor migrant workers and others, which is not caught by the existing legislation. Will the Minister ensure that that is covered by the review?

Iain Wright: On the broader point, that is why I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for a massive increase in the supply of housing, particularly social housing. We need to address the imbalance between housing demand and supply, which is what the Bill tries to do.
Let me mention several of the issues that the private rented sector review will look into, because I think that that will address the points raised by my hon. Friends. One issue that the review will consider is very interesting, given that my hon. Friends who tabled the new clause represent two distinct areas, with different characteristics and different problems—West Ham is not the same as Durham. The review will look at the composition and regional characteristics of the private rented sector, who lives in it and who the providers are. I want to collect the evidence that my hon. Friends have provided to contribute to the review.
Another issue, which picks up the point raised by my hon. Friends about migrant workers being exploited, is what impact demographic and social change might have on future demand and supply pressures in the sector and how key players should respond. The review will also consider future regulation and examine what more could or should be done, given the recent regulatory changes, to ensure that we have a professionally managed quality sector to meet demand pressures. Finally, there is the issue of tenant and landlord views and experiences of the sector. What are their priorities for change, and how can those priorities contribute to policy development?
I urge my hon. Friends to contribute to the review to ensure that it is as robust as possible, and I shall invite them to talk to Julie Rugg and David Rhodes from the centre for housing policy at York university, who will be carrying out the review. It is important that we have my hon. Friends’ experiences, anecdotes and evidence, and the people leading the review could go to West Ham and Durham to find out what is going on in the private rented sector to ensure that they are as informed as they can be, so that any future legislative changes are made with the greatest authority.

Robert Syms: The Minister will be aware that high levels of students cause problems in certain areas as a result of what is called studentification. I have listened carefully to him, and I assume that the review of the private rented sector will pick up some of the problems in areas where high levels of students have an impact on the housing market.

Iain Wright: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I did not make myself clear—or perhaps he came in slightly later—but I have mentioned the problems of studentification. As I have said, we are about to consult on the use classes order. The problem has certainly been raised with me; I have responsibility for it; and I am keen to look into it.
I hope that I have covered in depth some of the issues that my hon. Friends have rightly raised. With the greatest respect, however, I must tell them that the new clause does not achieve anything that cannot be achieved via existing statutory provisions for regulating the private sector, such as additional licensing and overcrowding notices. However, there are certain concerns, which we will need to tackle when we are looking further afield as part of the private sector review. Given what I have said and the fact that I am extraordinarily sympathetic to my hon. Friends and want to help them as much as possible, I hope that I will be invited back to the beautiful city of Durham and to West Ham—I want to go on tour. In the light of what I have said and of my sympathy for my hon. Friends and their great campaigning work, I hope that they will consider withdrawing the new clause.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for his generous comments and for the sympathetic way in which he has approached the issues. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and for Luton, South have demonstrated, we need to re-examine the issue, regardless of the circumstances that lead to areas having a lot of private rented housing. We also need to consider extending not only mandatory licensing, but use class orders as they affect HMOs, as the Minister has said.
The Minister has given us a lot of information about the private rented sector review, and he has generously stated that we can be involved. I shall be happy to welcome him back to Durham to talk to local landlords, students and others. We shall certainly present the evidence that he has requested. Because of the review that was announced yesterday, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: Having, as the Americans say, gotten up hours ago, I have now woken up, and it has dawned on me that this afternoon’s business is likely to involve a certain amount of interruption. I suspect that there will be several votes in the House that will inevitably entail the suspension of the Committee, so that we shall lose time. I know that it is Thursday afternoon and that some hon. Members have a long distance to go back to their constituencies, but I am in the hands of the Committee. Ordinarily, as hon. Members know, we do not sit for more than three hours without a break, but given that there will be breaks for votes, if the Committee wishes to have injury time and to sit for longer, which is, again, a matter for the usual channels, I see no reason why we should not sit until the rise of the House.

New Clause 30

Code of practice for the private rented sector
‘The appropriate national authority may by order—
(a) approve a code of practice (whether prepared by that authority or any other person) establishing standards of conduct and practice to be followed with regard to the management of residential property (other than property controlled or managed by the bodies specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 2004);
(b) approve a modification of such a code; or
(c) withdraw the authority’s approval of such a code or modification.’.—[Lembit Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In view of what you just said, Mr. Gale, I shall continue to exercise a self-denying ordinance of brevity, and so I shall seek the Minister’s views on new clause 30, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. It is once again about enforcing a code of practice for the private sector. It seems to me, and to organisations concerned about the matter, that the private rented sector is still a wild card when it comes to standards. The active ingredient of the new clause is the establishment of standards of conduct and practice that must be followed on the management of private residential property. The debate that we have just had highlights the dangers of not doing so.
The Minister will be all too aware of the fact that many people live in abject poverty in the private rented sector and, as long as we do not have a more active way of enforcing standards, that is likely to continue. One of the problems is overcrowding, which is forced on us by the absence of sufficient rented accommodation. The County Times in my constituency, which is without doubt the finest campaigning newspaper not only in Wales or the United Kingdom, but western Europe, has frequently highlighted the desperate shortage of housing in the private rented sector and, indeed, the public rented sector, in my constituency. As a result of that shortage, people are willing to compromise their standards and accept accommodation that in any other circumstances they would regard as unacceptable. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure in regulations that the quality of such private rented accommodation is sufficient to warrant people’s living in it.
I ask the Minister to share his perspective on the matter. He does not have to give us a long response, as long as it is insightful. On that basis, I shall decide whether to press the new clause to a vote.

Iain Wright: I applaud the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, but I intend to outline and explain the mechanisms that we already have that negate the need for it. Section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 gives power to the appropriate national authority, which is the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Minister in Wales, to approve codes of practice, whether prepared by that authority or another person, laying down standards of conduct and practice to be followed with regard to the management of houses in multiple occupation or of excepted accommodation. Excepted accommodation is any accommodation that is specified in an order that is accommodation controlled or managed by public sector bodies, or other accommodation specified in regulations, buildings occupied by students or religious communities, buildings occupied by their owner or buildings occupied only by two persons who are not living in one household.
The power has so far been used to approve three codes of practice that specifically deal with the management of student accommodation. No other code has been considered necessary as yet, because local authorities have been active in ensuring that HMOs, which are frequently the most problematic properties in terms of management, are managed adequately via the mandatory licensing regime. I am satisfied with the way in which local authorities are ensuring the management standards of such properties.
Looking more widely than HMOs—I am conscious that we have already debated them—hon. Members seem keen to ensure for those who rely on a third party to manage their home that there are common standards to ensure that the management is conducted properly. I hope that hon. Members are not surprised to hear that I could not agree more. Everyone has the right to expect their home to be managed well and professionally, which is one reason for the private sector review. That is also why, for people who rent privately, the Government actively support accreditation, which has been championed by the Accreditation Network UK, and the national approved letting scheme, both of which we have provided with funding in the past.
Both ANUK and NALS ensure that those who rent in the private sector have the option to rent a decent property from an accredited landlord or via an accredited letting agent. Accreditation Network UK promotes and encourages best practice models of accreditation. Local authorities, in conjunction with local landlord organisations, work together to ensure that properties and/or landlords sign up to codes of practice on standards and management. Its model scheme, which has been adopted by many local authorities in relation to their local private rented stock, includes a requirement to fair, reasonable and competent management practices. Many schemes also provide landlord training and professional development.
Agents who are members of NALS—there are 1,400 member offices throughout the UK—have agreed to abide by service levels such as responding to requests for maintenance or repairs and otherwise providing good and competent management. Prospective tenants looking to rent a home in the private sector should be encouraged to use an agent who is a member of NALS or to let a property that is part of a local authority accreditation scheme. Many local authorities are looking to ensure that accredited properties are part of the mix within choice-based lettings.
My Department is currently instigating a piece of work on accreditation to establish whether the existing schemes are adequate or whether there needs to be more active support for their take-up and use, which will complement the work being carried out as part of the private sector review. NALS is supported by the professional bodies in the lettings and management sector, namely the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Association of Residential Letting Agents and the National Association of Estate Agents, as well as by the British Property Federation and the Housing Corporation.
I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire tabled the new clause on the back of concerns, perhaps of his constituents or Shelter, that the experience of those renting in the private sector sometimes falls short of the standards of management that all tenants have a right to receive. I talked about the private sector review in our debate on new clause 29, and explained that we are trying to do as much as we can with that. I stress that the outcomes of the review will help to inform us whether any further Government intervention or regulation of the private rented sector is needed, but the Bill is not the place to do that.
A possible unintended consequence of the proposed new clause is that such a national code would apply to all residential property, whether long-leasehold, freehold or owner-occupied. I do not wish to dwell on that point, as I want to be as concise as possible, but I am not sure whether that is the intention. Existing codes for leasehold management practices, such as that produced and promoted by RICS, adequately cover that area. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he will not press the new clause to a vote.

Lembit Öpik: The most interesting thing that the Minister said was that his Department is, to use his phrase, doing a piece of work to investigate the quality of private rented accommodation. I did not know that. He will discover that there is a huge range of quality. In the private rented sector, there is still accommodation that frankly is rubbish. People live in relative squalor in this country in accommodation that does not befit a second-world country let alone a first-world country. Again, I am touched by the Minister’s optimism that existing legislation does the job, but let us recognise that that rubbish accommodation exists here today, even under the aegis of the Housing Act 2004. That tells me that however hard he may try to persuade us that existing legislation is sufficient, there is accommodation that has fallen through the vice-like analysis of the quality of accommodation in this country under existing legislation. Therefore, people are living in accommodation that is bad for their health as well as for the communities that endure that poor accommodation.
It is possible that even the new clause would not be sufficient to change the situation. We must be realistic and recognise that in 10 years’ time there will still be rubbish accommodation in this country. Part of the reason for that is that people are loth to complain. I was quite intimidated by my landlord when I was a student because I felt that he had all the power and that if I complained too much he would either throw me out or increase my rent to such an extent that I would have to move out. We are talking about power relationships in which the tenant is almost always the junior partner. Therefore, although the Minister did not say this, I am not completely persuaded that even new clause 30 would be enough.
Nevertheless, on the basis of that one very important revelation that the Department is examining the quality of accommodation in this country, I am willing to withdraw the motion, but if possible—we do not have to do this in the next week or two—the Minister might seek feedback from individuals of all parties about what the style of that investigation needs to be and what parameters the Department might wish to set, to establish whether there is something that we can do through legislation or codes of practice to try to get rid of accommodation that is harming people in a social sense and sometimes harming their health as well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31

Statutory overcrowding: definition of overcrowding
‘For section 324 of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—
“324 Definition of overcrowding
(1) A dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of this Part when the number of persons sleeping in the dwelling is such as to contravene—
(a) the standard specified in section 325 (‘the bedroom standard’), or
(b) the standard specified in section 326 (‘the space standard’).”.’.—[Lyn Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lyn Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 32—Statutory overcrowding: bedroom standard—
‘For section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—
“325 The bedroom standard
(1) The bedroom standard is contravened when the number of bedrooms available to the occupiers of a dwelling is less than the number of bedrooms allocated to them in aggregate in accordance with the formula set out below in subsection (4).
(2) No account shall be taken for the purposes of the bedroom standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.
(3) A room is available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom.
(4) For the purposes of the bedroom standard a separate bedroom shall be allocated to the following persons:—
(i) a person living together with another as husband and wife (whether that other person is of the same sex or the opposite sex);
(ii) a person aged 21 years or more;
(iii) two persons of the same sex aged 10 years to 20 years;
(iv) two persons (whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10 years;
(v) two persons of the same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the other is aged less than 10 years;
(vi) any person aged 21 years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another occupier of the dwelling so as to fall within (iii), (iv) or (v) above.”.’.
New clause 33—Statutory overcrowding: space standard—
‘For section 326 of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—
“326 The space standard
(1) The space standard is contravened when the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is in excess of the permitted number, having regard to the floor area of the rooms of the dwelling available as bedrooms.
(2) For this purpose—
(a) a child under the age of five shall be reckoned as half a unit and a person aged five or over shall be reckoned as one unit, and
(b) a room is available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom.
(3) The permitted number of persons in relation to a dwelling is the aggregate for all such rooms in the dwelling of the numbers specified in column 2 of the Table set out below in relation to each room of the floor area specified in column 1.
No account shall be taken for the purposes of the space standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.

Floor area of room

Number of persons
110 sq. ft. or more
2
90 sq. ft. or more but less than 110 sq. ft.
1.5
70 sq. ft. or more but less than 90 sq. ft.
1
50 sq. ft. or more but less than 70 sq. ft.
0.5
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained for the purposes of this section; and the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or the bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in a part of the room which is of less than a specified height not exceeding eight feet.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) A certificate of the local housing authority stating the number and floor areas of the rooms in a dwelling, and that the floor areas have been ascertained in the prescribed manner, is prima facie evidence for the purposes of legal proceedings of the facts stated in it.”.’.

Lyn Brown: According to the 2001 census, Newham has the highest average household size in the country. The lack of bigger homes is a principal cause of the overcrowding, with entire families living in one-bedroom flats. The negative impacts of overcrowding and/or cramped accommodation on family life, education, health and community cohesion have been ably demonstrated in reports by Shelter and the Royal Institute of British Architects.
In Shelter’s report entitled “Full house? How overcrowded housing affects families”, we discovered that three quarters of overcrowded families had children sharing a bedroom with parents; more than a quarter had children sleeping in living rooms and dining rooms—that rose to more than a half in respect of severely overcrowded families—and 86 per cent. said that depression, anxiety and stress in the home were caused by cramped living conditions.
More than a quarter of Newham’s homes are overcrowded, according to the occupancy rating. Indeed, the Department for Communities and Local Government’s figures from a 2005 study showed that the highest level of overcrowding at ward level, based on the bedroom standard, is shared by a ward in my constituency—Green Street West. Twenty-five per cent. of those households are overcrowded. It shares the dubious honour of being the most overcrowded ward with its neighbour, Green Street East, which is also situated in the London borough of Newham.
I have numerous constituency cases in which overcrowded accommodation is clearly having a very negative effect on family life and children’s development and achievement, and is placing a real strain on services and communities. For instance, Mrs. R lives with her entire family in a one-bedroom property in Stratford. That is an almost adult family of four. Mrs. R, who is elderly and has health problems, sleeps on the living room floor.
Mrs. B, another constituent who sought my help, lives in a two-bedroom flat with her four children, whose ages range between four and 14. As one can imagine, the cramped living conditions have an enormous impact on her eldest children’s education; they find it difficult to study, given that they have no space to do so. The schools that the children attend have written to me on the family’s behalf, asking whether I can help to get them housed in more appropriate accommodation.
Mrs. O is trying to balance her busy career as a nurse with the pressures of an overcrowded home. She, her husband and their eight-year-old daughter share a one-bedroom flat in my constituency. Mrs. O will soon have a greater pressure on her family life because she is heavily pregnant and is expecting the baby soon.
Mrs. I from Plaistow has been living in a two-bedroom flat for seven years, and in that time her family has grown. Her four children are getting older, and her son has to sleep with two of his sisters in the second bedroom because of the pressure of space. Mrs. I told me of her concern about the impact that it has on family life, especially on her children’s development. Again, the educational prospects were a great concern.
Frankly, Mr. Gale, I could continue listing such cases, but I chose those four because they happen to have come up in the last six weeks. I wish to make it clear that it is a tiny selection of the cases that have come to my attention. Often, however, families in overcrowded accommodation are not entitled by law to larger properties because of the archaic definition of overcrowding currently on the statute book.
The current standard dates back to 1935. It bears no relation to modern living standards. It may have been appropriate in the inter-war years, when we were clearing the slums in the east end—those that were left standing after the luftwaffe had played their games—but they are not the standard for today.
Under the existing definition of statutory overcrowding, infants under 12 months old are not counted as members of the household. Those under the age of 10 count as only half a person. The definition includes living rooms, and even kitchens, as acceptable places to sleep. Its definition of acceptable bedroom sharing arrangements is not appropriate to 20th century Britain.
New clause 31 would overhaul the current definition of overcrowding. It would insert new wording into the Housing Act 1985 to ensure that bedrooms and not merely “rooms” counted—a bedroom standard rather than a room standard. New clause 32 would bring in a new bedroom standard, based on the statistical measure of overcrowding used in the survey of English housing, and it has wide acceptance—for example among researchers—as an appropriate gauge of overcrowding.
New clause 33 would update the existing space standard by including all children under the age of five as half a unit, and everyone over that age as one unit. Youngsters take up space, as all lucky parents realise, and a more generous bedroom standard that recognised their presence would do much to assist young families juggling work and home to make ends meet; and it would allow our young people more space at home in those crucial early years.
I want to give hope to families that find themselves trapped in such circumstances. The high cost of living and the high cost of housing mean that many families are completely trapped. I hope that the Minister will be minded to intervene, when appropriate and possible, to ensure that the size of new build in areas of the greatest pressure meets the real needs of the residents. To decode that, I mean that we need to build larger properties in the developments currently planned in Lea valley and the Thames Gateway, properties that are appropriate to the needs of the communities that those areas should serve.
There is a real social, economic and health cost to families living in overcrowded conditions. I ask the Minister to recognise that, and to pledge Government action to tackle it. Overcrowding is completely unacceptable. I recognise that some local authorities have concerns that the introduction of a bedroom standard might add further pressure on social housing. I stated before, that pressure is already extreme in Newham. However, overcrowded households—even those that are statutorily overcrowded—are entitled only to reasonable preference on the waiting list, not to extra priority ahead of others who are in more immediate housing need. Nor will statutory overcrowding be anything more than a relevant consideration in reaching a decision on whether it is reasonable for an overcrowded household applying as homeless under section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 to continue to occupy its current accommodation.
An updated statutory definition will not overburden local authorities or create unrealistic duties beyond those imposed by current legislation. I therefore hope to hear something significant from the Minister on the new clause.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I want to speak briefly in support of the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has given extensive and compelling reasons why further measures are needed to prevent overcrowding and provide better space standards. Clearly, the lack of affordable housing in some areas and the weaknesses of licensing, which we have discussed, mean that households will fall into overcrowding traps if they do not meet current definitions or have the means to move to other accommodation.
I should also stress to the Minister that many of the new houses that are being built throughout the country are very small, and families will grow out of them very soon, so there is an urgent need to look at space standards. Like my hon. Friend, therefore, I am very interested to hear what the Minister will say about tackling those issues.

Alistair Burt: We have listened with considerable sympathy to the arguments raised by the hon. Member for West Ham, particularly about the problem of ever-smaller places being built. I have heard her concerns about the Thames Gateway echoed by local authorities, which find that one- and two-bedroom apartments are flying off the shelves, but cannot get bigger properties built. It is therefore perhaps time for a further look at the issue, and we, like the hon. Lady, are very interested in what the Minister has to say. We are certainly sympathetic to her general position.

Margaret Moran: I, too, support the new clause. We have been discussing the issue for many years. I have sat on several Committees that have considered housing Bills, and I remember hon. Members repeating the need for a modern definition of overcrowding. The current definition dates back to the pre-war era, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has eloquently outlined, and it is not relevant to the modern day.
Some of those living in my constituency, particularly among the south Asian and Bangladeshi communities, have very large extended families, and they face severe overcrowding. At my surgeries, I routinely see a trail of people who live six to a one-bedroomed property, and that will happen again tomorrow. It is not acceptable in this day and age to tell such people that they have no hope of being rehoused, because their lives are unutterably impossible. Those people’s children live on the streets, with all the consequences that we know that has in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour. That is not the fault of those children, who have nowhere to learn, live or play, and it is intolerable that they should have to exist in such conditions in this day and age. We need many more properties in Luton and we have a desperate need for more three and four-bedroomed homes. Ever more one and two-bedroomed properties are being built to meet commuters’ needs, but families have no prospect whatever of moving.
On many occasions, I have raised the issue of why we do not ensure that RSLs and councils can allow extensions to homes. If we lived in an overcrowded home and could not afford to move, we would try to get a loan to build a loft extension or to extend our home in some other way, and I do not understand why we cannot allow people in desperate circumstances to do the same.
I hope that we will amend the overcrowding legislation very soon, but in the interim, we should ensure that more funding is available to councils and RSLs, so that they can take practical measures to relieve at least the immediate misery of some of those families. We also need to consider how to make the housing allocation system more flexible. It is simply nuts that a family of six, living in one-bedroomed accommodation but needing four or five bedrooms, cannot be allocated at least a three-bedroomed home. Such families’ lives would be improved immeasurably as a result of that greater flexibility, but the bureaucratic systems do not allow it. Admittedly, the accommodation would still be overcrowded, according to the local authority definition, but for those whose accommodation is so overcrowded and whose lives are intolerable, increased flexibility would at least allow a slightly better quality of life.

Andrew Slaughter: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and other hon. Members. The problem of overcrowding dominates the surgeries and work of a substantial minority of MPs, particularly—I suspect—in London, the south-east and inner-city areas generally. I can support the examples that have been given today: five children in one-bedroomed flats and six children in two-bedroomed flats are increasingly common, as my surgery case load demonstrates. It has become the norm—not just common—for two or three-children families to live in under-provisioned accommodation that requires extra bedrooms.
During my short time in this House, I have taken part in several debates on the subject, where I have heard from the increasingly significant minority of hon. Members who have a large number of constituents experiencing such hardship. It strikes me that were that level of deprivation and lack of social provision the case in other public services, the problem would have been addressed sooner.
In the past 10 years, Government policy has failed to address the crisis in the provision of low-cost housing of a sufficient size. In part, the Bill will address that problem by setting out the Government’s intention substantially to increase housing supply, and affordable housing supply in particular, in this country. The new clauses represent the other side of the same coin, which is why I hope that the Minister will welcome them. However, if the Minister cannot accept them today, will he at least acknowledge the need to improve the living conditions of families in overcrowded accommodation? The situation is intolerable, and it must not be allowed to continue.
The huge disparity in the cost of market properties, particularly in London and the south-east, whether rented or for sale, is one of the factors that have led to the problem of overcrowding. The average price of a property in Hammersmith and Fulham is £453,000, and it is not much less in the Ealing part of my constituency. According to the National Housing Federation, an income 22 times the average is needed to purchase such a property, which means that there is no possibility, as there was just 20 years ago, of families on low or average incomes accessing property in the private sector. We need a greater amount of subsidised housing, which I believe the Government intend to provide. I strongly welcome that, if it will help to improve the overcrowding situation.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has said that the new clauses are not designed to place infeasible and unrealistic burdens on local authorities, it is absolutely right to send a signal to them that this is a problem that they have the job of tackling. They have statutory duties towards homeless people and homeless families, and they are failing to deliver on those duties in some cases.
The measure is to the Government’s advantage, because it fulfils Government policy. It may be to the disadvantage of some local authorities, and I shall use the example of Hammersmith and Fulham council, which has openly set out three ambitions in relation to the provision of subsidised housing. The council’s first ambition is to minimise the amount of affordable social housing that is constructed, so that the borough goes from a situation where more than 80 per cent. of the housing built in the borough was social housing, as was the case under the previous Labour council, to a position where the council has a target of 40 per cent. overall, which is below the London planned target. The council’s second ambition is to reduce by three quarters, from about 40 per cent. to about 10 per cent., the proportion of housing that is social housing for rent and to dispose of as much existing social housing as it can as quickly as possible by market sale. Thirdly, the council aims to reduce the overall percentage of social housing in the authority.
Those ambitions run contrary to everything that the Government are trying to do. Whether they run contrary to the Opposition’s national policy on housing, I do not know, because every time an Opposition spokesman raises the issue, different words come out of their mouths. We hear warm words about housing supply, but we hear very little on the ground from many Conservative authorities. It is time to turn up the pressure on local authorities that are not prepared to co-operate with the Government’s laudable aim on housing supply, and emphasising the need for change to the overcrowding standard is part of that process.

Andrew George: I rise briefly to congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham on tabling the new clauses and to indicate my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire.
Many Members of Parliament are aware from their casework—I must say to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that the problem exists not only in urban areas, but in rural areas, too—that the existing standards are often compromised. We often deal with casework in our constituencies—I certainly do in the west Cornwall and Isles of Scilly parts of my constituency—in which the existing standards and regulations have frequently been flouted. The local authorities and housing providers are well aware of that, and they do their best to overcome the fact that there are many circumstances in which families with children of both sexes are managing in properties with two or even one bedroom.
I speak with a certain amount of experience of overcrowding myself, having been brought up in a family of eight children in a property with only three bedrooms. I know from that personal experience that there are limits to what one can do with bunk beds and so on, and I know the other challenges that overcrowding presents to any family. That does not mean that I have less sympathy for families living in similar circumstances today. In fact, with the rising standards that we have today, I have far greater sympathy for those who are experiencing overcrowding now, because I have experienced it myself in the past.
I hope that the Minister takes heed of the strong case made by the hon. Member for West Ham and others. This is an area where it is important to send out a clear message and, as the Minister will be well aware, that message will need to be backed up with the appropriate resources, or with enabling powers for local authorities and housing providers, to ensure that we address the serious challenges that many people and families face as they live in circumstances that we ourselves would not want to live in.

Iain Wright: The debate has been important. I am under no illusion as to the depth of feeling expressed not only by my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and for City of Durham, who have pinned me to the ropes yet again in a most eloquent manner, but others on both sides of the Committee and, indeed, of the House.
I have found the debate interesting and illuminating, and I agree with much of what has been said. I agree that the current definition of overcrowding has remained unchanged for far too long. The current standards are inappropriate, inaccessible and archaic, and we need to do something about it. However, the Government have already committed to moving towards an updated standard. Hon. Members will recall that when giving evidence in December, and in a written ministerial statement to the House on 12 December, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing confirmed her commitment to amend the Housing Act 1985.
I was very taken by what was said about the impact of overcrowding on children, which is an important point. The Government are committed to addressing the matter of children in bad housing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, who has made that point time and again, spoke most eloquently on the effect that overcrowding can have on children.
We know that one child in 10 lives in an overcrowded house, and I suspect that the figure is slightly higher, if not substantially higher, in the West Ham constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has made us think about the fact that overcrowding can have a real impact on health, education and wider well-being—it can leave small children with no space for toys, which can affect their development. As someone who is interested in education and how it can improve chances in life and quality of life, I accept that overcrowding leaves children with no place to do their homework, so their educational attainment suffers.
We must deal with such matters. Children who have nowhere to play with friends are more likely to underachieve at school, which might lead to their being forced out on the streets. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know that people are concerned, in both a positive and a negative way, about gangs on the streets, and we need to do something about that. Later, we will debate a related clause at some length, but there seems to be a close statistical correlation between overcrowding and family breakdown and domestic violence. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham is doing an awful lot with regard to that important point.
“The Children’s Plan: Building Brighter Futures” was published last month, and it demonstrates strong cross-Government support for tackling the issue of children in bad housing. As well as setting out ongoing investment in decent homes and our ambitions for the supply of new housing, the plan gives a clear commitment to updating the statutory overcrowding standard proof. If necessary, the Government are committed to changing those outdated and archaic standards.
Hon. Members may be aware that the Government already have the power to amend the definition of overcrowding through secondary legislation. We have made a commitment to update the standard, which I absolutely reaffirm. However, we do not need to put powers in the Bill, because it can be done through secondary legislation.
In the long term, we need to be able to affect the supply of housing. The Bill is designed to achieve better standards and more houses. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has already announced our priority to increase the overall supply of housing. Housing is sorely needed in some parts of the country to tackle the overcrowding problem. We have already announced the target of 240,000 additional homes a year by 2016, with the delivery of 2 million homes by that date and 3 million by 2020. In order to achieve that, we are providing unprecedented amounts of investment.

Lyn Brown: Will the homes be of the size that we need? It has been reinforced time and again today, through anecdotes from both sides of the Committee, that one and two-bedroomed properties are flying off the shelves, because they are the quickest and easiest to build and give the best profit margin to developers. We need three and four-bedroomed, proper-sized houses built to Royal Institute of British Architects standards, so that we can provide the right places for our children to grow up. Is there any hope of ensuring that the homes are of an appropriate size?

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. However, I want to get in my message about the unprecedented amounts of investment going into housing—I like saying that—before addressing her important point about needing larger homes, not dog kennels. We are providing £8.4 billion across the regions over the next three years to invest in affordable housing. That will initially be done through the Housing Corporation and then through the Homes and Communities Agency. The investment is a 50 per cent. increase on previous comprehensive spending review periods. We are increasing new affordable housing outputs to 70,000 by 2010-11, of which 45,000 will be for new social-rented homes, which is 50 per cent. more than in the current year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has said many times, we need larger properties, and housing developers need to ensure that family houses are being built, because that is what people sorely need. Local authorities working with the Housing Corporation and, in future, the agency, and developers have an important role to play, through both the planning system and their strategic housing role. My hon. Friend will be aware of planning policy statement 3, “Housing”, which was published in November 2006. It sets out the national planning framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives. It states that the
“key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live.”
Crucially, PPS3 asks for more support for family homes. It explicitly provides a requirement that the housing needs of children be considered, and it places an emphasis on family-friendly developments, including access to gardens—I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about density in her area—play areas, green spaces and parks, which should be well-designed, safe, secure and stimulating.
Similarly, planning policy guidance 17, “Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation”, states that such facilities
“have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and...in the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others.”
I can see from the corner of my eye that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, who is a champion of such matters, is itching to get up and speak, so I shall give way.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I applaud PPS3, because it provides a way forward for better space standards and for the balanced and sustainable communities that we want to create. What checks will the Minister’s Department make on local authorities to ensure that they are delivering the objectives of PPS3 when new developments are planned?

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted our dilemma. We hear accusations time and again that the new agency will be a top-down mega-quango that will impose centrally driven targets, but that is not the case. Local authorities have a responsibility on this issue. PPS3 clearly states that local authorities should have flexibility in deciding what sort of housing their areas need. I imagine that the diversity of housing needs and challenges in the City of Durham, to which I have been to speak at the symposium on affordable housing, will be different from those in areas such as Poole. Local authorities need to flex their elbows on that matter. There will be local considerations, but I will keep a close eye on the matter to ensure that family homes with surrounding play areas, which are so important for children to grow and develop, are provided on new housing schemes. I shall keep in close contact with my hon. Friend on that.

Andrew Slaughter: I agree with everything that the Minister has said, but at some point the Government will have to turn their mind to what they are going to do about recalcitrant local authorities that are not prepared to play ball. A local authority such as Hammersmith and Fulham, which I have cited, that says, “Where we had 240 homes designated for affordable rent and shared ownership, 90 per cent. will now be available only to people earning more than £50,000 a year,” and which cynically describes those homes as “affordable”, is not delivering what the Government intend.

Iain Wright: I agree. When we debated part 1 of the Bill, we discussed how the Homes and Communities Agency will suggest how local authorities can step up to the plate. All the evidence and documentation that I have received about housing in London seems to suggest that affordable housing and housing suitable for families are Londoners’ No. 1 priority, and I think that that issue will be key in London in the next five or six months. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and his party, the work that my side are doing resonates more with the public than some of what local authorities are doing. Ultimately, we shall find out about that in local elections.

Grant Shapps: I am pleased to hear the Minister’s comments about more flexibility for councils on such matters. To pick up the comments made by some Labour Members on severe overcrowding problems, would not scrapping the density targets be of great assistance, so that instead of making one and two-bedroomed houses the automatic choice, it would be the norm throughout the country to have variation?

Iain Wright: I am grateful for that, because it relates to another point that I touched on in an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, which is that—my hon. Friend and I may disagree on this—density in itself is not necessarily the problem. We need very good planning, because planning, design and quality are key factors. The point that I always make is that the area of greatest housing density in London is apparently Kensington and Chelsea. I know that my hon. Friend will say that that cost a lot of money, and I understand that point, but it is important that there should be well-designed areas for play, so that people do not feel isolated and excluded, which is vital.

Lyn Brown: As for the idea that Newham could somehow be designed into becoming Kensington and Chelsea—

Iain Wright: Why not?

Lyn Brown: Because Newham is one of the 10 poorest areas in the country, and it is poverty coupled with density that causes social problems. Density is an issue where people cannot buy or provide for themselves recreational space and quality of life. Including less dense areas in areas of deprivation improves quality of life and enables families to reach their full potential. I accept the points that have been made about density, but having grown up in a council flat and lived on a council estate—a good one, which had space—I know that we can build areas that are appropriate for families. However, there are too many places in my constituency that have too great a density and that have many social problems not only because of the overcrowding, but because there is no space and people do not have the money to buy themselves out of that situation. We should not return to the road of building high-rise blocks and thinking that they will answer our social needs.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We do not want to see the return of tower blocks. That demonstrates, however, the importance of design and planning, which leads me to reiterate this concern. In the context of place shaping, a well-designed area with suitable facilities, open spaces and good quality housing and other accommodation allows people to raise their games. Alternatively, we all know that poorly designed and badly planned estates can depress the spirits and be breeding grounds for crime, antisocial behaviour and social exclusion. We need to make sure through the Homes and Communities Agency and bodies such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment that planning, design and quality are top of the agenda.

Lembit Öpik: Let us also recognise that much of what we are talking about is attitudinal. I regret intervening at this point, but we cannot expect legislation to solve all the problems. In part, it is because of bad management that we end up with bad communities.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.